Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (7):568-572 (2008)

Authors
Abstract
The ethics review system of research is now well-established, at least in the developed world, although there are many differences in how countries view it and go about managing it. The UK specifically is now seeking to revise its system by speeding up the process of ethics approval but only for some studies. It is proposed that only those studies which pose “no material ethical issues” should be “fast-tracked”. However, it is unclear what this means, who should decide and what should be included in this category. In this paper, we go some way towards answering these questions. While we are certain that the debate is only just beginning, we are equally certain that it will continue to run long after the system has been reformed. To stimulate this conversation and to inform a pilot project of the new system directly, we review two candidates to help give some substance to the notion of “material” ethical issues. Firstly, material could mean a certain type or degree of risk. Second, material could mean how physically invasive the research is. We conclude that there is still much work to be done on making the system of governing health and social care consistent and practicable
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2007.022491
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,229
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Editorial.Sarah J. L. Edwards - 2012 - Research Ethics 8 (1):3-5.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
Theory Pursuit: Between Discovery and Acceptance.Laurie Anne Whitt - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:467 - 483.
Proportionality, Just War Theory and Weapons Innovation.John Forge - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):25-38.
Proportionality in Modern Just War Theory: A Tort-Based Approach.Davis Brown - 2011 - Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):213-229.
Proportionality, Causation, and Exclusion.Thomas D. Bontly - 2005 - Philosophia 32 (1-4):331-348.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-13

Total views
26 ( #423,556 of 2,455,436 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,205 of 2,455,436 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes